Alex Libman

Looks like we have ourselves a disagreement with no testable hypothesis, however I can offer the following speculation:

I have engaged in many capitalist activities while not wearing pants: I've performed billable work, signed contracts, bought consumer goods, traded stocks, came up with great BPR ideas, etc. In fact, I find that not wearing pants boosts my creativity, sense of individualism, and desire to exchange value for value.

Almost all socialist activities I was forced to engage in involved pants or at least shorts: going to school, pledging allegiance (under duress of course), voting, etc.

Socialist demagogues might be perfectly willing to create a "not-wearing-pants rights" bureaucracy if public opinion swung the other way, but in all socialist countries that has not been the case thus-far. In a purely free market, on the other hand, only the owner of the given property you are on would be able to create rules against not wearing pants, and if the "no pants" movement comes to be organized, no matter how small a minority it is, some establishments will specifically cater to the no-pants crowd. Ultimately, pants bigotry is bad for business.

In the free market, there would be plenty of businesses willing to sponsor no-pants events, like the international No Pants Day, because of the benefits to their own products (i.e. shaving and skin care products, scrotum deodorizers, etc) - and the grinches Big Pants lobby would not be able to stop them!

The pants manufacturers would have to work harder to convince people considering adapting the no-pants lifestyle, which would bring about all sorts of break-through inventions and innovations: lighter and more comfortable materials, more user-friendly take on / take off procedures, Internet access, de-fart-ation technology, optional transparency (or a flexible screen projecting the sort of image you want your pants to project), force fields to keep pants from falling down, etc, etc, etc. The sky is the limit!

Greedy (in a good way) health insurance providers would be interested in the financial effects of not wearing pants, and adjust their rates according to this habit. There might be some downsides, especially in colder climates, but there ought to be benefits as well. If millions of people were losing some measurable health value from wearing pants, would you expect the government to tell you the truth? Why would they?